Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
As a corporation, there is no reason to alienate potential buyers on either side of the aisle.
Exactly. It surprises me, given Apple sales are lagging in some areas, the BOD hasn't asked Tim to stay focused on the business. Virtually no other large multi-nationals weigh-in monthly on political topics because they are busy and recognize alienating customers/clients is a real risk.
 
Except if you live outside the United States.

Then Apple is PERFECTLY fine with you stoning women to death, throwing gays off rooftops, and making homosexuality illegal.

Tim Cook doesn't have what it takes to stand up to the muslim states or to China. He bends over and takes it from those countries.

I completely agree with you. However, I understand why Tim likely won't touch the Muslim issue.

He likely won't address the Muslims because they believe he should be killed because of his homosexual lifestyle per the tenets of their faith. Western evangelical Christians, as a general rule, are a much "easier" religious group for homosexuals to oppose than Muslims. The Western Christians might not serve a gay man a wedding cake but the Eastern Muslims may very well kill him.

It's hard to have a dialogue with a group of people who don't think you deserve to be alive in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck
uld stick to working on issues with the products, but if you have man parts you use the mans restroom. i dont give a flip what you identify as. fully behind trump

If you are fully behind Trump that you are as conflicted as he is since he says that he didn't care what restroom people used and that Kaitlyn Jenner could use any restroom she wanted to.


And she did:


e. I know that some women even barge into the men's room if the line to the ladies room is too long. So apparently it was not an issue until fairly recently.

Still not an issue. For some strange reason after nearly 100 years since the first transgender operation some people are suddenly upset. Where were they over the last century?

Most transexuals do not actually have 'gender dysphoria' where they believe they are literally trapped in the wrong body but merely 'want to be a woman/man', often as some sort of sexual fetish, hence many and up in sex work

If a woman yelps with horror after some hairy guy in lipstick invades the ladies' bathroom is she to be charged with a hate crime by the thought police?

You clearly do not understand the difference between transgender and dressing in drag. So not the same thing. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: psac
I'm not white, I'm mixed race, and have faced my own share of problems that I'll not sideline the thread with. Also as a female I live all my life with the fear of being targeted for sexual assault and sexism overall and fear the same for transgendered females as well, by the way. That's why I'm not against sharing the ladies room with a transgendered lady. I'm just wishing and hoping for a way to do so in a way that will diminish both our vulnerability to predators. Alas, that "easy way" won't be feasible in every situation.

Anyway...

It's BECAUSE I'm worried that the rights you seek will be overturned with the stroke of a pen, that I don't want to rely on something as flimsy as an executive order to decide these matters.

The black rights you reference have been fought for state by state, over GENERATIONS, to gain the backing and critical mass they needed to become secured in a permanent and enduring basis in our laws up to the federal level. And they are still being firmed up, with much progress left to accomplish. Same as with the rights of the disabled.

That is how our system has worked and how it was designed to work. Our country at its founding was recognized to NOT be one homogeneous population but a coming together of colonies that were diverse in origin and character. Some started as colonies of Catholics fleeing oppression. Or as Protestants doing the same. Some started as commercial ventures.

The system was also designed to let people freely enter and leave the communities that best matched their values and lifestyle choices.

The system was also supposed to be a mixed of populist and elite ideals. Hence the popular vote and the electoral voting system. And it was supposed to take its direction from the people. The chief executive was not meant to dictate to the people. We speak through our elected representatives.

The reason the system seems so effed up is we gave our corporations the rights of people. It has now become "of the lobbysists, by the lobbyists and for the corporations" more than the man or woman on the street, unfortunately.

That's why I really do not like a person conflating their identity with that of a corporation. The corporation has vast wealth and influence at its beck and call. That's all well and good when the corporation has humanitarian values. But what about Nestle? The head of Nestle has embroiled himself and Nestle in a lot of controversy over who has rights to water. What about Monsanto, who routinely tries to trounce the rights of people to be free of GMO garbage in their diets.

Like it or not, the kind of change you seek is a process and takes generations to accomplish. The millennial generation is good at fast tracking change and future generations will be as well, but change is always going to be a messy time consuming business when it involves human beings who are free and not under mind control.

I don't know how old you are but I'm 50 and see the progress LGBT rights have made in my lifetime. It's particularly impressive when you consider how small a percentage of the entire population of the country the LGBT community comprises.

Meanwhile LGBT have been effective at establishing communities, even entire cities supportive to their needs. I should know because I lived in one for many years. It is horrible that people might feel compelled to leave their hometowns to find a compatible environment, but people of all diverse kinds have been doing so since there has been a country. Others choose to fight for change and a place in their community, knowing it will be a hard struggle, but worth it.

If you want the Feds to take power to quickly and cleanly confer rights upon you, fine, but don't be surprised when they take that power and do something you don't agree with. Something horrific.

It's far better to have all of us rise up through our legislators and our courts to ASSERT our human rights. Not beg, bug or bully one President, who may or may not be mentally healthy, to do so for us. And better to do so as people, not corporations. We need to take our personhood back from companies.

All very well said. It is of incredible importance to speak up regarding the protection of other people's rights, even when it has no bearing on you whatsoever. First, just as fellow human beings, it is the right thing to do. Second, because your rights could be next.

I fully back Apple and Cook on this.

PS -- Trump himself said on the Today show last year that his position was to leave this order in place, and not change anything. Obviously someone or some group got to him and made him change his position on this. If he can spend the time to change this order, then Apple can spend the time to make a statement against it.
 
I don't understand how the federal government gets any benefit by rescinding protections for minorities. The message here is that the government is singling out certain minorities for discrimination, which is saying that discrimination is OK in the eyes of the federal government. THAT IS NOT OK.

Saying that this is a "state's rights" issue is a cop out. Was civil rights a state issue? Was women voting a state issue? They (Republicans) tried to make marriage equality a state issue and lost. It seems they want to make a state issue out of whatever they find unsavory and what they personally support but their constituents do not. It's a fallback position that benefits nobody. The last time we had a state's rights vs federal rights argument, we called it The Civil War and the states lost.

What we need are people in government who actually stand up for the people who vote for them.
 
Trying to stay out of this debate for the most part, but I don't understand this argument. California is a physically bigger state, why should they be punished for that? Do their voters deserve less than 1 vote because they live in a bigger state? It seems to me, the most fair way to elect is to choose the candidate that most Americans vote for. Every single American citizen deserves an equal vote to every other. I don't have a problem with the outcome this year, even though I didn't vote for the guy, so this is not me complaining.
Not being punished as they should and do have more EC votes(55) than say Wyoming (3). "The electoral college was developed as a way to give each state, no matter the size of the population, an equal voice in elections and the Senate. This allows for states with smaller populations, such as Wyoming, to have just as much voice in elections as larger states like California and New York." Typically whoever gets the most votes do win the EC votes but its not guaranteed (as this election shows). Only a few times (5) in history (1824,1876,1888,2000,2016) has this not been the case so apparently it does work 99.9% of the time. It only "doesn't work" when the loosing party is not happy with the results. In the popular vote scenario, the candidates would most likely only campaign in the few heavily populated states since that's where the most votes would be. Therefore those states would most likely always drive the outcome so whatever agenda/party they believe in would always be the one in power.
 
Thanks to transgender rights, a student's legal name is considered educational protected information in California. You can be fired and prosecuted under FERPA for disclosing somebody's real name. This is the future.
Under exactly what circumstances would someone authorized to know a student's name under FERPA need to disclose a name to someone not authorized under FERPA? Last I checked, teachers aren't supposed to mention a student by name to anyone outside work (save for parents/guardians) for any reason. Even if an instance isn't illegal, it's viewed as deeply unprofessional. But y'know.

Any creep can identify as the opposite sex to violate the privacy of bathrooms for others.
They can do that now, too, and violation of privacy is still illegal regardless of whether the person is or claims to be trans.

The lines are too blurred and if you aren't taking physical and legal steps to change your gender association, you can be categorized as simply experimenting and should experiment in the bathroom of your own sex.
The "physical and legal steps to change your gender association" are often expensive, time-consuming, and otherwise just cumbersome. Most trans people, like most cis people, are not rich. Also, you contradict yourself within that phrase because gender is not physical.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
I agree with trump on this one.

Which Trump..the one that said leave things alone and critized North Carolina (shown in the video I posted a few minutes ago in this thread) and that said Caitlyn Jenner could use whatever restroom she wanted, or the Trump of yesterday that thinks it's a state's rights issue? He seems conflicted. Split personality disorder?
 
I think most people's disagreement here can be boiled down to the fact that trans people freak them out and that they therefore don't want companies speaking up about it.

I'm not so sure about that. I will admit, trans people do freak me out a bit if they are very obviously one gender but dressed as another, but I have no problem with them using the bathroom of the gender they identify with. My problem is that I think we need some regulations on this, because I'm worried about perverted people who aren't actually trans thinking they can just go in the other gender's bathroom and have a look around as long as they tell anyone who questions them that they are transgender. I think the gender you identify with needs to be listed on your license or something, and the law should require you to use whichever gender bathroom you listed. I think that would stop some non-trans pervs because surely they wouldn't be willing to get it plastered on their official license and paperwork if they weren't actually trans. But all of this would still be a really hard thing to enforce regardless of which side you're on. Maybe future bathrooms will all just have completely closed off stall, no cracks or openings above and below, and everyone will use the same bathrooms?
 
While that is an actual medical condition, that is NOT something that affects most transgender people. Get serious.

Most transgender people are people who "feel" or "believe" that they want to be, actually are (despite the genitals they were born with), or should have been the other gender and then take steps to make changes to their bodies in order to become that gender.

Read the entire statement. I was replying in simplistic terms to someone incapable of acknowledging the reality that the world is not black and white. He made an incorrect statement that people born with a penis are all male, I debunked even that statement. I also would expect that account for a minority of the trans community but I'm capable of seeing beyond oversimplified analysis of the human experience such as penis=male just as I'm able to know that the appearance of the sun moving through the sky doesn't mean it is rotating around the earth. Sometimes you need to explore further to understand the scientific basis for a condition beyond what you see on the surface or have understood in ignorance to date. The concept of being male or female or masculine or feminine goes well beyond genitalia; after all, if you were to have an accident and lose your penis would you cease to be male?

Biology is much more complex than what people have between their legs whether it's intersex people, chromosome combinations other than XX and XY, or the composition of the brain itself. What you refer to as feel or believe (the quotation marks where unnecessary) are the result of brain biology and chemistry. Brains themselves are not strictly male or female, within every brain are regions and in almost every one of us different regions in the same brain will independently exhibit both traditionally male and female patterns. If you are male I guarantee there are areas of YOUR (you, personally) brain that are predominately female patterned. So yes, I believe that scientifically it is realistic to expect someone can feel female while having male anatomy or male while having female anatomy.

But even if we all ignore all of the biological data now available to us and just assume these people just want to be something different, why should you or I or anyone else care? Does what other people do to their own bodies affect you? Do you also want to pass laws about where people may be based upon having tattoos? Pierced ears? Hair plugs? Prosthetic limbs? Glasses? The outrage just seems ridiculous to me.
 
I don't want a man in the woman's room with my little girl and wife because that man feels like a woman that day.

Not hard - if you are born with a male genitalia you're a man.

If you're born with female genitalia you're a woman.

It's not hard...okay then a question for you. Is this a woman or a man and which restroom should they use? Would you like to see this person entering the women's restroom with your little girl and wife?

IMG_1870.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: psac
Fact check: Three million more individuals voted for Trump's opponent in the general election.
Fact check: Since the founding of this country, the President has been elected by the Electoral College system as prescribed in the Constitution. This isn't something new cooked up by evil Republicans in 2000. So yes, the American people did elect Trump per the system put in place over 200 years ago (long before the Republican Party even existed).

Arguments based on the raw vote count are equivalent to claiming the Falcons were the real winner of the Super Bowl 51 because they averaged more yards per carry than the Patriots. It may be true but it is completely irrelevant because yard per carry are not how NFL games are won.

IF presidents were elected by raw vote count, Trump would have spent more time campaigning in CA and NY but since it really didn't matter if he lost CA and NY 48-52% or 30-70%, he did the smart thing by campaigning in states that would put him over the 270 Electoral College vote threshold. Likewise, it didn't matter how big of margin Hillary won by in CA & NY so she could have spent more time in MI, PA & WI. That was her decision.
 
Which Trump..the one that said leave things alone and critized North Carolina (shown in the video I posted a few minutes ago in this thread) and that said Caitlyn Jenner could use whatever restroom she wanted, or the Trump of yesterday that thinks it's a state's rights issue? He seems conflicted. Split personality disorder?

You can support an issue and believe it is not the purview of the federal government without any internal conflict or hypocrisy. Stepping outside of this specific issue I'm just saying it can be logically consistent for him to believe simultaneously in what you've listed.
 
Glad trump is focusing on the important issues :rolleyes:

At the same time I'm getting a little tired of Apple giving their input on issues like this.
[doublepost=1487874426][/doublepost]I am sick and tired of trumpf the dictator trying to rule the world. He should stick his head up his ass and go play golf.
 
Three states? Maybe you need to take another look at the election map. Pretty sure there were more than three states he won

Can people not do math anymore? He won by flipping three blue states, a margin of only just over 77,000 people. If those mere 77,000 people had not voted for him, he would not have won. It's really quite simple. Margin margin margin. All about the margin.

3 million illegals in California.
Proof or retract per forum rules. Thanks.
 
To be fair, the Koch brothers (of Koch Industries), were gigantic funders of the Tea Party movement which to this day continues to infect all levels of state and federal government.

Koch Industries has, among other things, interests in oil refining. Yet their Tea Party movement determines policies on just about every aspect of government from things that directly impact Koch Industries (clean energy initiatives) to things that are completely unrelated (gay marriage).

By comparison, Apple is benign. They don't have operatives embedded up and down all levels of government.

They do though, in many areas in fact, they just don't advertise it.
 
Like Obama said elections have consequences and the libs lost.

I am sick and tired of Apple and Cook speaking out on everything Trump does.

Time to start buying from a different company.

Okay. I agree. Good luck finding a non-progressive tech company out there. I guess you'll be trading in your phone and computer for an abacus. :D

If Hillary won and Trump won the popular vote this electoral college argument wouldn't be happened by liberals.

Honestly, the hypocrisy is astounding

Yes, it really is:

IMG_1883.jpg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...om-disaster-to-genius/?utm_term=.128a278d5cee
 
Can people not do math anymore? He won by flipping three blue states, a margin of only just over 77,000 people. If those mere 77,000 people had not voted for him, he would not have won. It's really quite simple. Margin margin margin. All about the margin.


Proof or retract per forum rules. Thanks.
some reading material
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...llions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973
 
SJW Tim relentlessly keeps pushing his leftist agenda and keeps telling people how to behave, what to believe and what is right for them.

He though in November he would own the American government (like Mark Cuban, Zuckeberg and most of silicon Valley) and tell politicians what to do for him.

Tim main goals are avoiding paying huge taxes to the american government, hiring low cost labor in China, India etc. while screwing american workers and re-write the constitution according to his agenda.

The american people voted against him and his globalist anti-American campaign.

I feel bad for Apple employee who disagree with Timmy ideology. They are probably the same ones telling Jony Ive that making computers thinner will just cripple the experience not enhance it and get fired.

Tim today is telling us that our daughters have to accept showering and peeing in the same bathroom with a grown man that feels is a female. This man is really SICK.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.